MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1606491959 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1410.5105

Improved Region-Growing and Combinatorial Algorithms for $k$-Route Cut Problems

2014· preprint· en· W1606491959 on OpenAlexaff
Guru Guruganesh, Laura Sanità, Chaitanya Swamy

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2014
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Geometry and Mesh Generation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study the {\em $k$-route} generalizations of various cut problems, the most general of which is \emph{$k$-route multicut} ($k$-MC) problem, wherein we have $r$ source-sink pairs and the goal is to delete a minimum-cost set of edges to reduce the edge-connectivity of every source-sink pair to below $k$. The $k$-route extensions of multiway cut ($k$-MWC), and the minimum $s$-$t$ cut problem ($k$-$(s,t)$-cut), are similarly defined. We present various approximation and hardness results for these $k$-route cut problems that improve the state-of-the-art for these problems in several cases. (i) For {\em $k$-route multiway cut}, we devise simple, but surprisingly effective, combinatorial algorithms that yield bicriteria approximation guarantees that markedly improve upon the previous-best guarantees. (ii) For {\em $k$-route multicut}, we design algorithms that improve upon the previous-best approximation factors by roughly an $O(\sqrt{\log r})$-factor, when $k=2$, and for general $k$ and unit costs and any fixed violation of the connectivity threshold $k$. The main technical innovation is the definition of a new, powerful \emph{region growing} lemma that allows us to perform region-growing in a recursive fashion even though the LP solution yields a {\em different metric} for each source-sink pair. (iii) We complement these results by showing that the {\em $k$-route $s$-$t$ cut} problem is at least as hard to approximate as the {\em densest-$k$-subgraph} (DkS) problem on uniform hypergraphs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.136 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)Same topicComputational Geometry and Mesh GenerationFrench-language works237,207